The Employee Free Choice Act AKA The Employee Intimidation Act
The Employee Free Choice Act AKA The Employee Intimidation Act
By
Ken Eliasberg
Permit me to make a preliminary observation: The enactment of either the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) or Obama’s Cap and Trade proposal would virtually destroy free enterprise as we know it. And the enactment of both would most assuredly bring America to its knees. For purposes of this column, let’s just take a look at the Employee Free Choice Act. In actuality, this piece of legislation, which is a sop to Organized Labor, should more appropriately be entitled either the Employee No Choice Act (as one columnist did in fact label it) or The Employee Intimidation Act.
I’m sure that by now you have all heard of the Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as Card Check Protection. One of its two most prominent (and objectionable) features is elimination of the secret ballot — you know, the mechanism through which we act to perpetuate our Democratic Republic. Before getting into the details of this piece of attempted legalized extortion by Organized Labor, let me make 2 observations. One, the author of this piece of legislation in the House of Representatives is George Miller (another one of Northern California’s aggressive left-wingers — possibly its most aggressive). Second, George is one of the authors of the following letter to an organized labor body in Mexico, i.e. the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla (dated August 29, 2001),
“Dear members of the Junta Local de Conciliacion Arbitraje of the state of Puebla:
As members[there were several other authors of this letter, but Miller was the lead author] of Congress of the United States who are deeply concerned with international labor standards and the role of labor rights in international trade agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections.
We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.
We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballot in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace. (emphasis supplied)
Now how does Miller square this circle? Obviously, he can’t. And this goes well beyond the usual charge of hypocrisy. Indeed, I’m beginning to believe that a charge of hypocrisy in a political context is just another way of describing business as usual. Actually, a charge of hypocrisy against many, if not most, of our politicians, would be flattering them. Why? Because it assumes that he or she knows what’s actually involved and is dissembling in order to obfuscate matters. No, that would be much too generous. In all events, in Miller’s case, we go well beyond a charge of hypocrisy; this is an act of flagrant dishonesty, or, if you prefer, a patent fraud. Moreover, it is a disgusting effort to jam this down America’s throat for no purpose more laudable than paying off organized labor, and, as noted, saddling American business with a debilitating and unacceptable burden.
The problem, as I am sure you have already discerned, is elimination of the historically acceptable use of a “secret ballot” in holding American elections — in this case, recognition of a labor union, i.e. does a particular group of employees want to be unionized. Secret ballots have been the mainstay of voting procedures in this country almost from our beginnings. The ballot is secret so that the voter’s right to vote is protected and inviolate — no one should be able to interfere with your right to vote, nor should anyone be given the opportunity to intimidate you in your exercise of that right. Not only is this right inherent in our system, it is a right that Organized Labor insisted on in the good old days when Organized Labor was both necessary and useful. In those days, they wanted the secret ballot to prevent intimidation from management, i.e. they want to restrict management’s ability to do anything that might interfere with the creation of a Union Shop. Now that management interference is no longer a serious problem, Unions want to eliminate use of the secret ballot. Why? So that they can replace management intimidation with Union intimidation. What do I mean? Simple, Unions want the right to beg, cajole, browbeat, or in any other way threaten employees to assure that they will vote yes to unionizing.
Why the great pressure? Because Organized Labor is playing an ever diminishing role in the private sector. They have fallen from having membership of approximately 35% percent of the private workforce in 1956 to now having a membership of only 7 or 8% percent of that workforce.
The secret ballot is but one of two objectionable pro-labor features of the EFCA; the other is government arbitration, a destructive form of government interference in the market place.
Commentary on this subject is plentiful, with most of it clearly demonstrating the worthlessness of this proposed legislation, and, while I cite some of it below for perusal at your convenience, 2 statements caught my attention. Why these 2? Because they were prepared by one of the most liberal U.S. Senators in the history of our Congress. Indeed, many feel, as do I, that he is the poster child for all of the ugliness of the ‘60s and the marker of the point at which the Democratic Party made a radical turn to the left. Who am I speaking of? George McGovern, the Democratic nominee for President in 1972 (and the man who took one of the worst shellackings in Presidential History). McGovern wrote 2 pieces on the EFCA, one published in 2008 in the August 8, 2008 iasue of the online version of the Wall St. Jl., simply and aptly entitled My Party Should Respect Secret Union Ballots, and again this year and again in the online version of the Wall St. Jl. on May 7, 2009 entitled The ‘Free Choice’ Act Is Anything But — George Meany and binding arbitration. This may be the first time that I have ever found myself completely in agreement with McGovern (who I regard as a decent, if fundamentally misguided, fellow). In his 8/8/08 Wall St. Jl. column he had this to say:
“ Voting is an immense privilege.
That is why I am concerned about a new development that could
denythis freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of
labor unions I must raise my voice against pending legislation
I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest
of either management or labor.”
McGovern elaborates in both columns on his opposition to both features of the EFCA and does so in a simple and succinct, yet compelling fashion. One need go no further in making the case for a rejection of this measure. That said, for those of you who would like to go further, let me recommend the following contributions, all of which are excellent: Card Check Undermines Workplace Democracy, James Sherk, WebMemo of the Heritage Foundation,, 11/14/06; THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT: Free Choice or No Choice for Workers, Richard A. Epstein, Civil Justice Forum No, 45, March, 2009; Cracking the Bedrock of Democracy: Destroying the Secret Ballot in Union Elections, Hans A, Von Spakovsky, Legal Memorandum No. 38 , 3/20/09, Heritage Foundation; How To Deny Employees Free Choice, Stuart Taylor, nationaljournal.com, 3/21/09; and How the Employee Free Choice Act Takes Away Workers’ Right, James Sherk and Paul Kersey, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, No. 2027, 4/23/07. There are dozens of others for the interested reader, but the preceding will provide you with all the information you need to analyze and evaluate this piece of proposed legislation.
The point of all this — the Employee Free Choice Act is designed to provide employees — i.e. prospective union marks — with no choice whatsoever!! Rather it is nothing more than a Union gun at the head of all such employees!!